Pman10, I think you make a great point. The problem is that although I in theory support and agree with you that excluding people from insurance coverage due to preceding illnesses is bad most people buy or pay for health insurance when they think or know that they have a major illness in the near term future. In that case the insurance company will not be able to absorb the cost since normally they would have a collected sample of health individual and they can predict what percentage will become ill. This law allow ill patients from immediately seeking coverage when they need it and not before which is forcing premium to go up and to adjust for the unexpected.

That's why a mandate is part-and-parcel to an effective healthcare solution. Think about it - if all citizens are required to be insured at all times, it will 1.) eliminate the issue of people only buying insurance at times of illness and 2.) increase the insurance pool, bringing down the average premium.

The other problem is that the mandate to lower cost will caused most private insurance to drop more people or exit the business which in turn will give more people to the gov't health care system and establish socialist medicine.

I'm not sure I agree. As long as you include no cost controls or gov't regulations (aside from the mandate and banning exclusion of sick patients), there is no reason for the insurance industry to drop out entirely. Think of it like the auto industry - all drivers are required to be insured, and yet it's rare to hear about people being unable to insure themselves, right? And yet, the auto insurance industry is almost completely private. The key to this will be having a safety net, so that people below a certain income qualify for some form of government subsidy, in order to pay their premium. This will potentially allow us to phase out medicaid, as well.

Most doctors don't want to take medicare/medicaid patients and the quality and access to healthcare will drop.

This is already a HUGE issue, so I'm glad you brought it up. Finding a primary care physician for someone under medicaid or medicare is an enormous challenge in today's environment. Medicaid and Medicare are a joke - in some cases, they do not even cover the expenses of a physician or hospital, meaning that a physician loses money for each medicaid/medicare patient they see! That's ridiculous, and needs to be corrected.

Here in Texas we have been working with several doctors that will accept only 100 VIP patients that will pay him approx. $5,000 or $500K per year and he will be on call 24 hours a day year round since this will be much better than Obama health care law. The price is not bad when my own insurance premium for my family are around $1,400 per month which total over $16,800 per year.

Why do you think that in socialist countries like Canada, Italy and Britain as an example my clients with financial means travel and pay to come and do their operation in the US since the quality and most important access of care in those countries has come done significantly.

Excellent, excellent point. No matter what approach we take to healthcare reform, this is one aspect of our system that we must NOT lose. Access to healthcare, and in particular to elective and new treatments, is incredible in the United States. Which is why I am strongly against any attempt to socialize or nationalize our healthcare system.

That being said, we need to have comprehensive reform. Our healthcare system, for the large part, is in shambles. We have some of the largest health disparities among modernized nations, we have some of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies of developed nations, and yet we spend two to three times as much per capita on healthcare as compared to our peers (UK, France, Japan, etc.)

My good client has had heart problems and he is an British citizen he went ask to see his doctor they determine that he needed an urgent operation and one month went by and nothing. So he spend over hundred thousand flew to the US and was seen and operated in less than a week.

Could you imagine if people did not have the financial means he would most likely die before being treated. The said part of the story is that it been almost 5 months from the operation and he just received notice that his request had been approved and to schedule the date for his operation.

This is a good story, but it doesn't really pan out when you look at the statistics. As I stated above, these countries have better life expectancies than ours, although that is largely due to a better diet and lower comorbidities (less prevalence of hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, etc.). These sorts of waits are usually found for elective or experimental procedures.

I would be curious to know how many people from those countries apply for benefit and how many actually receive it. I bet that in cases of cancer and surgery most cancer patients did not receive the treatment in a timely manner which drastically reduce their chances to survive.

gentlemans, honestly: do you think Obama is the person who really controls the economy of your country? are we crazy or what?

__________________

There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

Considering the mood in late 2008, and contrasting that that to now, is eye opening. Even some of Obamas most enthusiastic supporters cannot deny that there is some disappointment being felt within his own political base.

It is a valid point that nobody could have lived up to the naive and unrealistic expectations heaped upon his head, especially when he had been dealt such a poor hand.

But, rather than trying to temper expectations with a message of "well, that's flattering but we'll do the best we can given these headwinds", instead, the Obama camp played off this sentiment and milked it for all it was worth. He revelled in his presentation as a healer. He preached a future where Americans would work together, reaching across party divides. Remember the Hope and change posters? In some circles, it stopped just shy of implying he could walk on water.

The dawn of a new era that was promised has been only a continuation of politics as usual. In fact, you could argue the bitterness and distrust have in fact grown worse over the last few years.

Washington is more broken than ever before. Of course, that is not entirely his fault. But it is certainly not his triumph either, given the expectation his team so cleverly cultivated.

Previous presidents (both Red and Blue) have also had to deal with Congressional majorities of the opposing party positioned "against" them with the same tools of filibuster; and yet they managed to make more progress. The level of gridlock seen now is unprecedented. The degree to which he has been politically clumsy is surprising given how he was presented to the voters.

Navigating those tricky waters is just an important skill for the POTUS to possess as being a charismatic, intelligent orator.

IMHO, you need both skills to succeed as president. Having said that, nobody will be surprised to learn I dont think we've had a "successful" president for quite a few terms now. 300+ million people to draw from, and the last few examples are truly the best we can muster to run the place?

Well, the more I read, the more I become convinced that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, as well as the introduction of the 1994 National Home Ownership Strategy (or, as I like to call it, "Got a pulse ? Get a Mortgage ! Program"), both of which happened during Bill's watch, played significant roles in planting the seeds for the financial catastrophe that reached full boil in 2008.

The mess Obama inherited was not his fault, but that ball started rolling before Dubya moved to DC also.

Having said all that, I'd still pick Willy over Dubya or Barry, given what I've seen so far. So, yay Clinton, but with a lowercase 'y'.

wasnt congress conservative during the clinton years in which the budget was best managed? kind of like how congress was lib run during the bush years?

Which part of gov does spending come from again? Instead of taking eco classes and learning about kinse for every class (only three classes for me) i spent my academic career as a business major. learning about what happens when a policy is actually put into effect as opposed to what we may think a policy may do... I practice in realities not ideologies....

wasnt congress conservative during the clinton years in which the budget was best managed? kind of like how congress was lib run during the bush years?

Which part of gov does spending come from again? Instead of taking eco classes and learning about kinse for every class (only three classes for me) i spent my academic career as a business major. learning about what happens when a policy is actually put into effect as opposed to what we may think a policy may do... I practice in realities not ideologies....

Bush had a unified government from 2003-2006 (inclusive - 4 years approx). From 2001-2003, the house was held by repubs and the senate was 50-50 until Jeffords jumped ship. Dems only controlled congress in the last 2 years of Bush's reign of error.

The case that Repubs contributed to the surpluses that occurred during the Clinton years can be reasonably made. However, the case that democrats contributed to botching the economy that occurred under Bush is not as straight forward.

outside of Lbros not being purchased, and of course TARP being pissed away, one could make the argument that particular gov and "private" corps wanting to spread the "american dream" might have had something to do with it....

Just a thought based on economic text books pieced together with people in the industry...

I should back up a second, and state that I feel Clinton deserves blame for the CFMA and for repealing Glass-Steagal - both are contributing factors to the current state of affairs. I'm a bi-partisan kind of guy. However, you just gave credit to the republican congress for the budget control, so they have to eat it for these things too. I'm always willing to change my mind; thanks for helping me see the light.

If you have a text book that tries to make the claim that the GSEs or CRA or whichever home-ownership initiative is being blamed on CNBC at the moment, try and sell it, and take the loss. Hell, if you read it, you already incurred a loss - if you can make a buck off it, you'll be ahead of the game.

All the joking aside, I agree with the frustration out there over TARP. People in Texas, or Oklahoma, or the Dakotas or wherever, shouldn't wind up on the hook for what bunch of idiots in NY/CA/NV/FL did. It particularly bugs me that this was such an unpopular thing and sailed through anyway. Wouldn't it be great if our elected leaders actually did what was in our interests? Apologies for the foolish idealism.

I should back up a second, and state that I feel Clinton deserves blame for the CFMA and for repealing Glass-Steagal - both are contributing factors to the current state of affairs. I'm a bi-partisan kind of guy. However, you just gave credit to the republican congress for the budget control, so they have to eat it for these things too. I'm always willing to change my mind; thanks for helping me see the light.

If you have a text book that tries to make the claim that the GSEs or CRA or whichever home-ownership initiative is being blamed on CNBC at the moment, try and sell it, and take the loss. Hell, if you read it, you already incurred a loss - if you can make a buck off it, you'll be ahead of the game.

All the joking aside, I agree with the frustration out there over TARP. People in Texas, or Oklahoma, or the Dakotas or wherever, shouldn't wind up on the hook for what bunch of idiots in NY/CA/NV/FL did. It particularly bugs me that this was such an unpopular thing and sailed through anyway. Wouldn't it be great if our elected leaders actually did what was in our interests? Apologies for the foolish idealism.

the text i was speaking of wasnt in reference to the GSEs or CRA etc. Like many things in government TARP was an idea that could have been a good thing but was pissed away. Had they simply bought the toxic assets off bank books, the initial TARP plan, the situation now would be much better (especially considering the money was spent anyhow) instead the money was spent on investing in companies that carried the debt...Everyone with any kind of understanding of business and economics knows this isnt the same thing

After that the thing to look at would be about how the deals were brokered on how and when to allow bank sales, bailouts, etc....

Agree 100% leaders dont have any interest in whats best for us, i think they too have a sort of idealism that they want to push and damn if it makes things worse, if they can feel better about things thats all they care about. To get back on topic here, i think this paragraph sums up exactly what is wrong with he Obama administration. They have no problem pushing plans based on ideals regardless of the negative impact, sort of a means justify the ends mentality if you ask me.

If you want to blame Bush for Obama's problems now, then he shouldn't have said "I will CHANGE this problem as president".

Thats called lying.

Should have been more like "I will try to change but really nothing will happen for another 8 years or until I'm voted out of office" Then again, that wouldn't have gotten him voted into office.

There have been tons of positive change in 3 years - don't know what kind of hole you've got your head stuck into. And if you wanted more change, then why'd you elect all the repubs in congress who have shot-down everything they possibly can? How is it Obama's fault that the majority in congress won't do their elected job?

There have been tons of positive change in 3 years - don't know what kind of hole you've got your head stuck into. And if you wanted more change, then why'd you elect all the repubs in congress who have shot-down everything they possibly can? How is it Obama's fault that the majority in congress won't do their elected job?

Its Obama's fault because thats what he promised. If I promise that Im going to do something, and someone makes it impossible, Im still the Liar.

How is it Obama's fault that the majority in congress won't do their elected job?

That's just it, they ARE doing their elected job. Their job is to represent the wishes of the people who elected them. 2 years into Obamas term, and people were unhappy with the state of affairs, so in big numbers they voted in Republican congressmen. The fact that this happened in places where Democrats had enjoyed lengthy tenures tells you that folks who used to vote Dem obviously must have crossed the aisle and voted Republican.

You seem to be suggesting that the job of congress is to go along with whatever plan Obama floats up there. If "the people" wanted that, they would have re-elected more Democrats, there would be no Republican majority, thus bills would be passing quickly. That is not what happened. The message from those votes, while you may not agree with it, was clear.

That's just it, they ARE doing their elected job. Their job is to represent the wishes of the people who elected them. 2 years into Obamas term, and people were unhappy with the state of affairs, so in big numbers they voted in Republican congressmen. The fact that this happened in places where Democrats had enjoyed lengthy tenures tells you that folks who used to vote Dem obviously must have crossed the aisle and voted Republican.

You seem to be suggesting that the job of congress is to go along with whatever plan Obama floats up there. If "the people" wanted that, they would have re-elected more Democrats, there would be no Republican majority, thus bills would be passing quickly. That is not what happened. The message from those votes, while you may not agree with it, was clear.

This is way off-base (in my opinion). The severe recession that Obama was elected into didn't even peak until a year into his term. So by the 2nd year, when things weren't suddenly, miraculously "all better", us educationally-impaired Americans did what we always do: get rid of the people we had just voted in. Did it make any sense? Of course not, because all we did was re-empower those who got us into the recession in the first place.

And congress' job is not to represent the wishes of their constituents -that's ignorant thinking. Do you really think that most constituents understand half of what congress votes on? What if people want the minorities removed from their district, do they get that? What if they want all emissions laws repealed, do they get that? What if they want to eliminate all the things that they don't have a personal use for?

The purpose of congress is to pass legislation, whether by compromise, reformulation, change of scope, or some other agreement. Congress is not there to sit around like idiots when the debt ceiling is about to be reached, and do nothing but speculate on what should've been done years back.

Why does everyone seem to forget that in 2006 and 2008 the pendulum had swung completely the other way - not because all democrats were suddenly geniouses, but because Americans wanted a turnover. Same thing in 2010, so it means nothing more than the fact that Americans have ADD.

This is way off-base (in my opinion). The severe recession that Obama was elected into didn't even peak until a year into his term. So by the 2nd year, when things weren't suddenly, miraculously "all better", us educationally-impaired Americans did what we always do: get rid of the people we had just voted in. Did it make any sense? Of course not, because all we did was re-empower those who got us into the recession in the first place.

And congress' job is not to represent the wishes of their constituents -that's ignorant thinking. Do you really think that most constituents understand half of what congress votes on? What if people want the minorities removed from their district, do they get that? What if they want all emissions laws repealed, do they get that? What if they want to eliminate all the things that they don't have a personal use for?

The purpose of congress is to pass legislation, whether by compromise, reformulation, change of scope, or some other agreement. Congress is not there to sit around like idiots when the debt ceiling is about to be reached, and do nothing but speculate on what should've been done years back.

Why does everyone seem to forget that in 2006 and 2008 the pendulum had swung completely the other way - not because all democrats were suddenly geniouses, but because Americans wanted a turnover. Same thing in 2010, so it means nothing more than the fact that Americans have ADD.

At no point did I suggest that the will of the people was in fact logical, sensible or rational. As long as the dumbest. most ignorant person alive has a vote that counts just as much as someone who is a certified expert in the issues, the flawed system will yield flawed results. It is what it is, and until you can change it, you have to respect the will of the majority.

The reality is, while Congress exists to pass legislation, they do that while keeping in mind the ideals/values that got them elected over the other person in the first place. Granted, many people dont know the details of what bills are passed, but the whole point of supporting 1 party instead of another is that you should be able to not worry about following things in detail because you can expect that the person you choose would vote in a predictable way consistent with the ideals/values they claim to represent during the election.

Of course, some people might just vote for a change, not because they have suddenly reversed their political beliefs. Even then, do you really think an election winner would think: "well, I ran on a platform of conservative, right-wing values, but I'll vote in a way that is aligned with left-wing, liberal values to keep the wheels of congress turning at all costs. None of my financial backers or constituents will hold me accountable for that because they just really wanted change of the name on the door, not a change of approach, so I'll get re-elected for sure." If you believe that, then THAT sir, is naive, ignorant thinking.

At no point did I suggest that the will of the people was in fact logical, sensible or rational. As long as the dumbest. most ignorant person alive has a vote that counts just as much as someone who is a certified expert in the issues, the flawed system will yield flawed results. It is what it is, and until you can change it, you have to respect the will of the majority.

The reality is, while Congress exists to pass legislation, they do that while keeping in mind the ideals/values that got them elected over the other person in the first place. Granted, many people dont know the details of what bills are passed, but the whole point of supporting 1 party instead of another is that you should be able to not worry about following things in detail because you can expect that the person you choose would vote in a predictable way consistent with the ideals/values they claim to represent during the election.

Of course, some people might just vote for a change, not because they have suddenly reversed their political beliefs. Even then, do you really think an election winner would think: "well, I ran on a platform of conservative, right-wing values, but I'll vote in a way that is aligned with left-wing, liberal values to keep the wheels of congress turning at all costs. None of my financial backers or constituents will hold me accountable for that because they just really wanted change of the name on the door, not a change of approach, so I'll get re-elected for sure." If you believe that, then THAT sir, is naive, ignorant thinking.

It does seem that committed representatives, when in opposition to this administration, are routinely and automatically deemed "obstructionist" or worse. No credit given for a principled (albeit forceful) approach to opposing legislation that runs counter to the wishes of their constituency. Perhaps that auto-damnation is a big part of the reason for the extinction of compromise as a way forward. To many, this administration is every bit as intractable as the opposition. Stopping the realization of this administration's agenda is no less legitimate than support for furthering the same ideas.